In A* v. P* Home Services , the plaintiffi sought damages stemming from a 2018 oil spill on her property, bringing suit under Navigation Law § 181, which imposes strict liability for petroleum discharges.
A*'s strategy hinged on securing summary judgment on liability, contending that the defendants—P* Home Services and affiliates—were solely responsible for the discharge, and that her own conduct did not contribute to the contamination. She also asked the court to dismiss two of the defendants' affirmative defenses: one alleging her own culpable conduct, and the other asserting she failed to mitigate damages.
The motion court, however, declined to grant summary judgment on liability and dismissed neither affirmative defense. On appeal, the Appellate Division noted that Navigation Law § 181 provides a powerful mechanism for redress but requires that the claimant is not themselves a "discharger." The court emphasized that whether A* qualified as a non-discharger depended on unresolved factual questions: Was the spill a result of the defendants’ overfilling of her oil tank, or was it due to a fault in the tank itself, which fell outside the defendants’ maintenance obligations?
Because these facts were not definitively resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny summary judgment on liability and retained the defendants’ first affirmative defense (culpable conduct). Simply put, the plaintiff did not eliminate all triable issues of fact, particularly regarding the source of the spill and her own possible contributory role. This preserved a fundamental dispute that must be resolved at trial.
However, the court sided with the plaintiff on the sixth affirmative defense—failure to mitigate damages. A* had taken prompt, diligent steps to report the spill and commence professional remediation, and the defendants did not effectively rebut her mitigation efforts with contrary evidence. Consequently, this defense was dismissed.
In sum, the appellate court’s decision reflects the careful balancing act within strict liability environmental claims. While plaintiffs may benefit from favorable statutory presumptions, they must still demonstrate clear non-involvement in the discharge. A*’s partial victory—dismissing one affirmative defense—sets the stage for a trial where the origins of the spill and the allocation of responsibility will be squarely at issue.
That was a spill ... and scene.
# # #
DECISION